the person who tried to teach you evolution is "survival of the fittest" may have been well intended, buts its horribly wrong on many different
levels, the least of which all the negative information content that the phrase carries

hateful organizations or people with a blatant agenda try to push the "Darwinism means survival of the fittest" concept and it often times leads to
violence and a horrendous group philosophy

evolution is the differential reproduction of molecules, its a fact of life, more so then gravity, and if you can prove otherwise with standards that
meet a peer-review process than you will, without question, win a noble prize and be one of the most important people in the history of modern
civilization

I have never heard of "govern English" what exactly is that? I'm not able to find it in any dictionary so you must have made it up.

That's because you took it out of context. We have witnessed you doing that many times. You know that link I supplied you about context that
you never read either. To put it back in context 'the rules that govern English'. See how it works yet

Nope, like I have written twice now, all you have to do is google "natural definition" and you will get it

Nope. Your source, you supply it. It is obvious you refuse. We can only suspect the reason why but it is not a positive for you. Until then
your ridiculous, unsourced statement is not acceptable.

Of course because I'm indicating evolution to also be a form of creation DUH!

Again your ignorance is showing. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. That is not an escape route for you.

Where is the
evidence that supports that fact claimed back in your original statement?

But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.

Come on, your running out of time.

Its a good observation and obviously why I don't agree with the whole civilized part making the decision.

Mine may have been a good observation. Your answer is not adequate at all as this is the crux of the whole matter.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to
perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not from
here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you.

It's been more than one person, and long ago.

Sorry but you have shown many times even in the last few pages alone that your word cannot be relied on. Source or it did not happen.

Not at all, in fact I linked it, you will have to go back and get the link, I'm not researching it again. It clearly states that according to wiki the
bible is a historical document.

I quoted from your link. It showed clearly that your statement claiming the bible as 'clear documentation' was unfounded and misleading. Your
claim that Wiki supported your claim that the bible was an historical document is clearly false, in fact it is a lie.

So you refer back to my post and address the argument I made calling your two statements into question. Failure to do so will result in those two
false claims not being acceptable within an honest debate.

The only thing you have done which is the same thing you always do, is show how you can fit both feet in your mouth at the same time. You haven't
proven anything.

Now try a logical, reasoned reply to my argument as the above as usual is not that.

edit on 10-6-2012 by colin42 because: We have witnessed you doing that many times

It would be nice if we could see some real debating your original OP but now we are stuck in this endless game of worthless semantics.
Maybe it's time to ignore him so he will go embarrass himself in another thread.

I agree that discussion would be nice. I feel tooth is about to run out of acceptable terms and arguments due to his many losses. I have a
sentence ready to go. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

I have never heard of "govern English" what exactly is that? I'm not able to find it in any dictionary so you must have made it up.

That's because you took it out of context. We have witnessed you doing that many times. You know that link I supplied you about context that you
never read either. To put it back in context 'the rules that govern English'. See how it works yet

I still have never head of anyone or
anything governing English. I doubt seriously if its a term.

Nope, like I have written twice now, all you have to do is google "natural definition" and you will get it

Nope. Your source, you supply it. It is obvious you refuse. We can only suspect the reason why but it is not a positive for you. Until then your
ridiculous, unsourced statement is not acceptable

I allready did, twice, so just deal with it.

Of course because I'm indicating evolution to also be a form of creation DUH!

Again your ignorance is showing. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. That is not an escape route for you. Where is the evidence
that supports that fact claimed back in your original statement?

That depends on what you mean by creation. If your talking about the man in
the bible, no thats not what I'm talking about. Creation is subject on its own you know. Anyhow evolution, at least in the way its being conveyed
here, is a form of creation in case you have missed that. The creation of new life, through any means what so ever, is still creation.

Its a good observation and obviously why I don't agree with the whole civilized part making the decision.

Mine may have been a good observation. Your answer is not adequate at all as this is the crux of the whole matter.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to
perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not
from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you

Oh well, I never said I agreed with her.

Not at all, in fact I linked it, you will have to go back and get the link, I'm not researching it again. It clearly states that according to wiki
the bible is a historical document.

I quoted from your link. It showed clearly that your statement claiming the bible as 'clear documentation' was unfounded and misleading. Your claim
that Wiki supported your claim that the bible was an historical document is clearly false, in fact it is a lie.

So you refer back to my post and address the argument I made calling your two statements into question. Failure to do so will result in those two
false claims not being acceptable within an honest debate.

It must be a new style of Colin truth, I know what I read, which is exactly why I posted it.

The only thing you have done which is the same thing you always do, is show how you can fit both feet in your mouth at the same time. You haven't
proven anything.

Now try a logical, reasoned reply to my argument as the above as usual is not that

You haven't Colin, you havent won a single argument with
me. I'm shocked you even continue on as it just makes you look bad.

By the way "reasonded reply" is not a valid term. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

It would be nice if we could see some real debating your original OP but now we are stuck in this endless game of worthless semantics.
Maybe it's time to ignore him so he will go embarrass himself in another thread.

I agree that discussion would be nice. I feel tooth is about to run out of acceptable terms and arguments due to his many losses. I have a
sentence ready to go. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

'

What do you think?

Agreed and stared.

I think at this point if we keep entertaining unctuous and untrustworthy deceptions, we are simply allowing inflate ideals of perversion to prosper.
On the otherhand if we ignore it, let him have the last word, there is still the rope of 400 pages he has already hung himself with.
Let it lie.

I still say its very odd how our ancestors bring nothing to the table as far as things we share with them. At best you can say they were hunter
gathers, but not only is there no proof of that, but apes have no proof of doing that either. We share nothing with our supposed ancestors.

If they really were our ancestors, we would share so much with them, including but not limited to some communication, and probably some lifestyles as
well.

I still have never head of anyone or anything governing English. I doubt seriously if its a term.

Why am I not surprised you have no knowledge of the rules that govern english

I have linked you to it before. Again you must have never taken time to read it. Grammar

an account of these features; a set of rules accounting for these constructions: a grammar of English.

That depends on what you mean by creation. If your talking about the man in the bible, no thats not what I'm talking about. Creation is subject on
its own you know. Anyhow evolution, at least in the way its being conveyed here, is a form of creation in case you have missed that. The creation of
new life, through any means what so ever, is still creation.

Evolution is any change across successive
generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.

As you have been told many times. Nothing to do with creation or the
process of creation.

So I take it that you are not going to supply the supporting evidence of your so called fact the beaver was designed. Please do not refer to it again.
As you have lost the point again.

Oh well, I never said I agreed with her.

Not good enough. Try again and remember failure to respond results in you loosing the right to use natural or not natural or unnatural when
referring to humans.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to
perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not
from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you.

It must be a new style of Colin truth, I know what I read, which is exactly why I posted it.

What a shame. I have shown you, using the information supplied in your link that the bible is far from clear documentation and that Wiki does
NOT state the bible is an historical document. You have yet again failed to give an answer to the argument made. You have now lost the ability to
refer to the bible as an historical document and your false statement that it is supported by Wiki.

I know you will try but you will not get an answer to anything that contains it.

You haven't Colin, you havent won a single argument with me. I'm shocked you even continue on as it just makes you look bad.

You failed, crashed and burned. You lost.

By the way "reasonded reply" is not a valid term. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

Your correct I should have wrote: 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

Actually, evolution vs creationism are BOTH science. It's just that the term 'creationism' is synonymous with 'magical sky-god' who waved his
hands in the air and then VOILA!! mankind is born.....

To 'create' something means to take put together a new form out of parts.....in all biblical or 'religious' doctrine, they state that humans were
'created' by the gods. Now, I am in no way religious. However I do support the Ancient Alien Theory, which supposes that these 'gods' were what
we today call 'aliens'. I seriously believe that we should not discount the many civilizations- that had distances and time between them -as ll
being delusional, and coming up with the exact same 'myths'....

A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this
planet.

We are a hybrid between a species that originates on this planet, and one that does not.

I still say its very odd how our ancestors bring nothing to the table as far as things we share with them. At best you can say they were hunter
gathers, but not only is there no proof of that, but apes have no proof of doing that either. We share nothing with our supposed ancestors.

If they really were our ancestors, we would share so much with them, including but not limited to some communication, and probably some lifestyles as
well.

We share zilch with them.

Exactly!

A voice box, for example, does not 'evolve' over time...something that primates do not have.

We have 96% similarities with the primate as far as DNA, but 4% of scientist call 'mystery' or 'junk' DNA.

Why? Because as stated earlier, we are a hybrid (genetically engineered) between a terrestrial species (primate) and a non-terrestrial species- also
known in ancient times as 'gods'.

To 'create' something means to take put together a new form out of parts.....in all biblical or 'religious' doctrine, they state that humans were
'created' by the gods. Now, I am in no way religious. However I do support the Ancient Alien Theory, which supposes that these 'gods' were what we
today call 'aliens'.

The ancient alien theory has anecdotal evidence that requires belief to accept. The amount of things one has to believe means it is a belief
system.

A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this planet.

Then you have not looked close enough or got your information from a biased source.

We are a hybrid between a species that originates on this planet, and one that does not.

The DNA evidence points to the mingling of early human and Neanderthal so you are correct.

Now explain the diversity we see today using the ancient alien theory. The thread topic: Explain the diversity we see around us today without refering
to evolution.

edit on 10-6-2012 by colin42 because: The thread topic: Explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

You are quite posiibly witnessing a speciation event and are too dim to realise it.

The Horse and the Donkey shared a common ancestor. At some point back in time, their common ancestors became divided became split into two groups of
animals and isolated from each other.

During this time of separation each animal became more suired to the environment in which it found itself.

When the two animals were re-introduced to each other, enough changes had occured that they were unable to produce viable offspring, that is, they
were now two different species.

Had the time between separation and and reintroduction been longer, it is quite possible that no offspring, viable or otherwise could have been
produced, had the gap been shorter, then maybe they could have produced viable offspring (such as happens with the wolf dog).

It could be the case that the original ancestor was actualy a horse and that a small group of them got seperated and evloved into donkeys (or vice
versa). At some point during the evolution of the donkey it would have looked like a donkey, but have been able to produce viable offspring with the
horse. In this sequence, the donkey would be a subspecies of the horse.

Its only at the point of being unable to produce viable offspring the we recognise a difference in species.

So, while a dog or wolf sperm, can fuse with a wolf or dog ova and produce viable offspring....they are the same species.

I still have never head of anyone or anything governing English. I doubt seriously if its a term.

Why am I not surprised you have no knowledge of the rules that govern english

I have linked you to it before. Again you must have never taken time to read it. Grammar

This is called grammar. No where in there does it
mention governing English.

You never stop to think, ever. Creation is Creation
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

2. the fact of being created.

3. something that is or has been created.

4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.

5. the world; universe

Thats what I'm saying.

Whereas Evolution is
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations

And though this event,
supposedly new species can be created.

As you have been told many times. Nothing to do with creation or the process of creation.

So I take it that you are not going to supply the supporting evidence of your so called fact the beaver was designed. Please do not refer to it again.
As you have lost the point again.

If your maintaining that it evolved, then I'm sticking to it also being created. That species either came
into existence from a creator, or from evolution, either way, it was created somehow.

Oh well, I never said I agreed with her.

Not good enough. Try again and remember failure to respond results in you loosing the right to use natural or not natural or unnatural when referring
to humans.

You claim via your neighbour that the Bushman is a natural occurrence if he is uncivilised. In your mad world that means the Bushman qualifies to
perform every action naturally. That he 'comes from here' because he 'fits'.

Now explain why the Bushmen that have given up that lifestyle and have become 'civilised' are now not natural in everything they do and are 'not
from here' and 'do not fit'

An explanation is required. Not more bullshine from you.

Oh give me a break, I'm not backing her definition. You have to remember that she
has other beliefs that don't match mine.

Dont ask me to defend her understanding, I don't agree with it.

It must be a new style of Colin truth, I know what I read, which is exactly why I posted it.

What a shame. I have shown you, using the information supplied in your link that the bible is far from clear documentation and that Wiki does NOT
state the bible is an historical document. You have yet again failed to give an answer to the argument made. You have now lost the ability to refer to
the bible as an historical document and your false statement that it is supported by Wiki.

Ok I'm going to post this again, for the last
time, so if you miss it, to bad for you.

Here is the link... en.wikipedia.org...
Here is the section...
Archaeological and historical research
Here is the phrase...
the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information

Now in case you missed it, which I'm sure you did, I will post it again...

Here is the link... en.wikipedia.org...
Here is the section...
Archaeological and historical research
Here is the phrase...
the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information

Now you have it a total of 4 times from the first post about it.

I know you will try but you will not get an answer to anything that contains it.

You haven't Colin, you havent won a single argument with me. I'm shocked you even continue on as it just makes you look bad.

You failed, crashed and burned. You lost.

So if I have seriously lost the last 400 pages, why have you decided to engage in an ongoing
discussion with me?

By the way "reasonded reply" is not a valid term. 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

Your correct I should have wrote: 'Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No comment.

We only have 3 types of antibiotics. In the past when I would visit a doctor for an infection, a specific one was usually issued. Now two are issued
because of new strains that have emerged. These new strains are the planets natural way to fight off infection.

Actually, evolution vs creationism are BOTH science. It's just that the term 'creationism' is synonymous with 'magical sky-god' who waved his
hands in the air and then VOILA!! mankind is born.....

To 'create' something means to take put together a new form out of parts.....in all biblical or 'religious' doctrine, they state that humans were
'created' by the gods. Now, I am in no way religious. However I do support the Ancient Alien Theory, which supposes that these 'gods' were what we
today call 'aliens'. I seriously believe that we should not discount the many civilizations- that had distances and time between them -as ll being
delusional, and coming up with the exact same 'myths'....

A closer look at our DNA shows that our genetic makeup does not follow the 'natural order of things' as it does with the other animals of this
planet.

We are a hybrid between a species that originates on this planet, and one that does not.

But you probably didn't know that there is a lot
more that agrees with your understanding, not just ancient aliens. Von Daniken, Lloyd Pye, Sitchen, and even the bible itself.

This is what I have been trying to teach these guys but they honestly think we evolved. There is a plethora of reasons that all show we aren't from
here but these guys maintain we are from here, even though there seems to be no proof of such.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.